Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indie Rights


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. clear agreement  DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Indie Rights

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nominating article of my own creation. Please note that my intent is not to prove a point; rather it is so that either I or Spshu can be apprised finally of what does and does not constitute the notability of the article's subject. &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 22:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 13.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 23:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: The article is up for deletions, since ATinySliver will not tolerate a Notability tag and falsely claims that I want it deleted.
 * Delete. Since, ATinySliver wants judgement now, instead of any time to find more sources. Article only has one significant source, Variety, twice once for Indie Right and again for Nelson Madison Films. Variety is primarily a media/entertainment news source while a major one is one of limited scope/interest. Most others are routine in coverage and possible unreliable (Amazon) or about the films. As such, Variety articles fail on WP:GNG as: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." and WP:AUD indicates: "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." So, a major source like AP, Reuters, ABC News or other network news, might by itself carry notability, Variety does not. Spshu (talk) 13:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * See talk: [ user] [ article] &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 18:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Maybe I'm biased, since I seem to recall that I'm the one who added the Variety sources, but Variety is a solid source and pretty much the gold standard when it comes to film-related articles.  Some of the other sources are a bit iffy, but there's enough coverage for me to err on the side of keep.  It needs further cleanup, but this can easily be done during normal editing.  I think the article is possibly padded with citations to vaguely-related topics, but it's not a crime to describe the co-founder's acting talents.  However, it certainly falls short of WP:MASK or WP:BOMBARD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the sources provided are enough to establish notability, although as Ninja noted some of them are iffy (many are just blogs). If we keep the article, please "do us all a favor" and "edit" the article to "remove" all the "unnecessary quotation marks" in the text. That's really "not the way to write an encyclopedia". --MelanieN (talk) 08:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, the disadvantages of having been a journalist ("Quote your sources!"). Tamed per MelanieN. :) &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 09:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * As discussion is minimal, and assuming I'm not lacking in proper etiquette, I'd keep as nom. Article has never not been in progress. &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 00:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.